The Committee is requested to elect the Chair
for the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

Minutes:

Councillor Don
Alexander was nominated and seconded. There were no further
nominations and it was therefore:-

Resolved – That Councillor Don
Alexanderbe elected as Chair
of Development Control Committee A for 2018/19.

72.

Election of Vice-Chair 2018/19

The Committee is requested to elect the
Vice-Chair for 2018/19 Municipal Year.

Minutes:

Councillor Windows was nominated and seconded. There
were no further nominations and it was therefore:-

Resolved – that Councillor Chris Windows be
elected as Vice Chair of Development Control Committee A for
2018/19.

73.

Terms of Reference for Development Control Committees

The Committee is requested to note the Terms
of Reference for Development Control Committees which were approved
at Full Council on Tuesday 22nd May 2018.

Minutes:

The Terms of reference as determined by Annual
Council on 22 May 2018 was noted.

74.

Dates of Future Meetings 2018/19

The Committee is requested to consider dates
for future meetings for 2018/19 Municipal Year. The following dates
are proposed:

(all on Wednesdays)

2pm on
25th July 2018

6pm on
5th September 2018

10am on
17th October 2018

2pm on
28th November 2018

6pm on
9th January 2019

10am on
20th February 2019

6pm on
3rd April 2019

Minutes:

Resolved – that the meetings for DC
A Committee for 2018/19 are agreed as
follows:-

2pm 25 July 2018;

6pm 5 September 2018;

10am 17 October 2018;

2pm 28 November 2018;

6pm 9 January 2019;

10am 20 February 2019;

6pm 3 April 2019.

75.

Welcome, Introductions and Safety Information

Minutes:

The Chair
welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised everyone of the fire
evacuation arrangements.

76.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from
Councillor Hickman with Councillor Brook as substitute.

77.

Declarations of Interest

To note any interests relevant
to the consideration of items on the agenda.

Please note that any
declarations of interest made at the meeting which are not on the
register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer
for inclusion.

Minutes:

Councillor
Clarke referred to Sims Metal Management - Royal Edward Dock
application and stated that he had been a Director of the Bristol
Port Company but was open minded and able to make a decision on
this application.

Councillor Carey
referred to the St John Hall application. He would withdraw from
the Committee when this application was considered as he had
submitted a Public Forum statement on it.

Councillor
Davies referred to the Stoke Lodge Playing Fields application
stating that his employer, Thangam Debonnaire MP, had submitted a Public Forum
Statement on it. He had no connection to the Statement and was open
minded and able to make a decision on this application. He also
referred to the YardArts application.
He would withdraw from the Committee when this application was
considered as he had submitted a Public Forum Statement on
it.

The Chair
declared that he was a member of the Public Rights of Way Committee
which would be considering a report on the Stoke LodgeTown and Village Green application. The Stoke Lodge
application on this agenda had no connection to that report. The
Chair also declared that he was the Ward member for theSims Metal Management - Royal Edward Dock
applicationand had attended discussions on
the application but remained open minded and able to make a
decision on the application.

The Head of Development Management referred to
the one notice in the papers. This matter had now been resolved as
a new location had been agreed and planning permission had been
granted. The notice would therefore be withdrawn.

81.

Public Forum

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for
this item.

Any member of the public or Councillor may
participate in Public Forum. The
detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.
Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note
that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this
meeting:-

Questions - Written
questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the
meeting. For this meeting, this means
that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest
by 4.30pm on Friday 15th June 2018.

Petitions and Statements
- Petitions and statements must be received on the working
day prior to the meeting. For this
meeting this means that your submission must be received in this
office at the latest by 12 Noon on Wednesday
20th June 2018.

Statements will not
be accepted after 12.00 noon on the working day before the meeting
unless they have been submitted in advance to Bristol City Council
but were not received by the Democratic Services Section. Anyone
submitting multiple statements for an application should note that
they will only be allowed to speak once at the meeting.

Please note, your time
allocated to speak may have to be strictly limited if there are a
lot of submissions.This may be as short as
one minute.

Minutes:

Members of the Committee received Public Forum
Statements in advance of the meeting.

The Statements were heard before the
application they related to and were taken fully into consideration
by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

The
representative of the Head of Development Management made the
following points by way of introduction:-

1.
The application was for the demolition of an existing changing room
building and brick tower and construction of a larger replacement
changing room building and associated works. The hours of operation
would be Monday to Friday 8am to 10pm, Saturday to Sunday 9am to
8pm;

2.
Due to the level of public interest and the nature of the
development it was considered appropriate for the application to
come before the Committee. The Planning Authority received 311
letters of objection from surrounding residential properties and
211 letters of support;

3.
The established playing field open space was owned by Bristol City
Council and used by Cotham School for playing facilities on a
leasehold basis;

4.
Stoke Lodge is a listed building. The existing pavilion, which is
some distance from Stoke Lodge, gained planning permission in 1966
and was in a poor state of repair and no longer fit for
purpose;

5.
The height and the footprint of the proposal would be increased
from the existing building. Although this was an increased scale of
building, officers did not consider it harmful in terms of impacts
on historic assets;

5.
Officers considered that noise disturbance could be an outcome from
this proposal but would not refuse it on that basis as this could
be conditioned;

6.
Four trees will be removed in order to facilitate the development
and replacement trees would be conditioned;

7.
The basis for the Planning Authority’s objection was that the
proposed enhanced and enlarged facilities would result in an
increased intensity of use and thus number of users of the site.
This would lead to a significant increase in coach and vehicle
traffic which is unsuited to the local highway network. There were
no turning facilities for coaches which would exacerbate the harm
caused. The applicant was asked to provide data with respect to car
parking but had not done so on the basis they believed there would
be no material increase. Officers had suggested a possible solution
of using the Stoke Lodge Car Park but the applicants did not wish
to enter into discussions and wished the application as it stood to
be considered;

8.
In summary, officers recommended refusal as traffic impact was
unacceptable and contrary to Policy DM23.

The
following points arose from debate;

1.
Councillor Breckels asked whether the Planning Authority could
condition the use of the car park to mitigate the unacceptable
traffic impact and was informed that this would be changing the
nature of the application. The applicant had not wished to discuss
this possible solution so such a condition would amount to a leap
of faith and raise a question over whether it would be
delivered;

2.
It was noted that trip information on vehicle usage had been
requested three times;

An
Amendment Sheet was provided to the Committee in advance of the
meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original
report.

The representative of the Head of Development
Management made the following points by way of
introduction:-

1. The
application related to an existing metal processing facility within
the Avonmouth Principle
Industrial and Warehousing Area as designated by the Bristol
Local Plan. The existing facility is 30 years old and out of
date;

2. The
proposal was to expand the facility onto an adjacent piece of land,
to add new
plant and to
upgrade and acoustically enclose existing plant. It
proposed a 3.5m high fence to limit dust escape and a pre-shredder
to reduce
occurrence of explosions in the Fragmentiser;

4. The
applicant undertook robust community engagement and their
responses to concerns were set out in the report;

5. In
summary, there were no adverse design, sustainability or ecology
impacts
envisaged. The business would become more efficient if planning
permission was granted and this was recommended.

The
following points arose from debate:-

1.
The only part of the development appropriate for renewable energy
was the office. As the main part of the proposal was for recycling
and the structures were acoustic houses and not buildings and the
renewable energy was small for the office. However, the report set
out other sustainability measures they had offered;

2.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that no weight should
currently be given to the emerging Local Plan as policies were not
yet formulated;

3.
Councillor Mead referred to St Andrews Church which had been there
long before this development and there had been concerns about dust
in Avonmouth for some time. In
response, he was informed that the applicant had worked well with
officers to balance the needs of the business with residential
amenity and the application was now at the stage where this
hadbeen achieved;

4. Councillor Davies stated the
acoustic barrier would improve the noise break out and noted that the a 6-8 db reduction was a significant reduction for
residents;

5. The representative of the Head of
Development Management confirmed that weight should be given to the
fact that the site was already a recycling plant as if refused and
appealed the Inspector would take this into account;

6.
The Chair observed that the residents of Avonmouth had suffered from dust and noise
pollution for some time and this would not happen in central
Bristol. He commended Sims for the effort they had put into
community engagement. He noted the assurances that things would not
be made worse and noted there was a brand reputation to protect. He
was therefore minded to support the officer
recommendation;

7.
Councillor Wright supported the officer recommendation;

8.
Councillor Mead was minded to abstain as he could not be satisfied
it would not be worse but equally he did not want to refuse the
application in light of an ...
view the full minutes text for item 84.

Councillor
Carey stood down for this application. Councillor Windows noted
that he knew the agent of the application and therefore chose to
stand down. This left 9 Committee members to vote on this
item.

An
Amendment Sheet was provided to the Committee in advance of the
meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original
report.

The
representative of the Head of Development Management made the
following points by way of
introduction:-

1. This application was referred to
the Committee by both local ward Councillors – Carey and
Langley and was also before the Committee due to level of public
interest for the proposal and concerns expressed regarding the
developer and their past issues;

2.
The application was to demolish the former St John Hall and garage
building and replace it with 8 single
dwelling houses with the front pedestrianised and a communal cycle
store;

4.
Key issues concerned loss of community facility as the building was
in a poor state, overshadowing of properties in Manworthy Road, City Reach and the Brislington and St Annes Conservative Club, a loss of privacy to
properties in Manworthy Road and
intensity of development;

5.
There were no design objections. Eight units did comply with policy
in terms of efficient use of land and this proposal was less
intensive than the outline permission granted in 2009;

6.
Transport colleagues were content subject to a TRO on the junction
to improve visibility;

7.
In Summary, officers recommended approval subject to conditions and
a TRO.

The
following points arose from debate:-

1.
Councillor Davies asked whether an enforcement monitoring
inspections could be undertaken as an exception in this case and
was informed that the applicant was not material to decision making
though this was a case when it would be
prudent to closely watch the site being built;

2.
Transport colleagues were content that emergency vehicles could
access the lane. A standard vehicle was used to assess this.
Approved vehicles would have to be arranged for private waste
collection;

3.
Councillor Stevens noted that this proposal did not meet the policy
of mixed housing and asked how approval was justified when flats
were not proposed. In response, he was informed that policy also
included more housing and officers’ focus had been on smaller
units that impacted less on the residential area and the nature of
the immediate area was family
houses;

4.
Councillor Wright felt it was a reasonable proposal for family
housing and not over developed so he would vote in support of the
officer recommendation;

5.
Councillor Breckels stated there was a need for more housing and
would support the officer recommendation. He hoped enforcement
officers would monitor the site;

6.
Councillor Brook stated that it was sad to lose a community
building but it was old and more housing was needed. He would
support the officer recommendation;

3.
The Planning Authority supported the principle of redevelopment for
housing but had a number of issues with this application hence the
recommendation to refuse;

4.
38% (14 of 37) of the apartments were single aspect and north
facing and would not get sunlight most of the day. This was in
excess of what officers could support. Policy DM29 applies. The
applicant was advised to reconfigure but chose not to do
so;

2.
Air quality was a serious issue in the area which suffered high
concentrations of pollution given its proximity to the M32 and the
development would create a street canyon which would exacerbate
pollution along Lower Ashley Road;

3.
The development would have a harmful overshadowing impact on the
neighbouring residential property above the ground floor takeaway.
A shadow analysis undertaken showed that at times of this year this
would be worse;

4.
The development was poorly designed and over intensive by virtue of
its height, bulk, massing and overall design;

5.
Two trees on site were a rare species and provided sufficient
amenity to warrant a TPO in view of the Tree Officer;

6.
In summary, the provision of affordable housing was supported but
for the reasons above officers recommended refusal.

The
following points arose from debate:-

1.
Officers had suggested some solutions to the applicant but the
applicant had not wished to pursue these;

2.
The Head of Development Management stated that it had been
recommended for refusal on affordable housing grounds also even
though it met the 20% requirement on type and level in order to
protect the Council’s position on this matter at appeal. The
Inspector would need to know the full case and the applicant could
subsequently state that no affordable housing was offered. That
reason for refusal would go away if the applicant confirmed the
provision of affordable housing at the appeal stage;

3.
The resident and takeaway owner had not objected but there was some
doubt if they were occupying the premises at the moment;

4.
A well designed, high quality development could have mitigated
against the loss of the trees. This scheme did not. It was a
balanced position;

5.
It was confirmed that there was scope for a higher quality scheme
whilst retaining the trees;

6.
Councillor Breckels disagreed with the officer recommendation as he
had seen far less well-designed schemes and the whole row of
buildings on that road were north facing. He added that he would
vote for grant subject to not all the affordable units being
located at the rear of the development. The Head of ...
view the full minutes text for item 86.

At this point Councillor
Windows left the meeting. This left 10
Committee members to vote on this item.

1.
The Head of Development Management introduced this item. This was
the second time it was before Committee and since then the
Committee membership had changed. On 16 May 2018 the Committee had
made no decision and asked that it be brought back with conditions
that could form part of an approval, which, in effect, was a
deferral and the application remained undetermined. The report
before this Committee provided those conditions and included the
previous Committee report for information. The sequential test was
a key issue and the Committee’s clear views in May were shown
in the minutes. As individual members, it was important to have
regard to these views but no decision was made so members were not
bound by the comments. In order to make a fully informed decision
legal colleagues recommended that the previous public forum be
circulated to the Committee and this was done;

2.
Councillor Davies asked whether the content of the previous minutes
would be used at appeal if the application was refused today for
the sequential test reason and was informed that the previous
meeting’s discussion would be raised in any appeal as the
minutes were a public record but this should not fetter the ability
of members to make a decision on that basis;

3.
The report now before the Committee also provided an additional
assessment regarding trees and highway safety. The Committee was
advised to give the appropriate weight to the previous discussion
and reach a decision on that basis;

4.
The Committee was informed that this was an application for an
extension to an existing row of retail units comprising two fast food
outlets and one retail unit, with service access at the rear. This
would require the moving of a zebra crossing west along
Eastgate Road. The existing drive-thru restaurant would also be
moved further forward from its current position.

5.
Objections regarding the removal of the Oak tree near Burger King
were received when the first application to extend the retail park
was submitted last year. As a result, this tree would be
retained. A number of trees along
Eastgate Road would be felled with the
exception of one Poplar and one Ash tree;

6.
The classification of Eastgate as a
Local District Centre was not supported when the Bristol Core
Strategy was drafted as retail centres should be truly accessible
for all modes of transport as well as principal locations for
shopping, community facilities, local entertainment, art and
cultural facilities. . The Eastgate
Centre is essentially just shops designed to be accessible for
carborneshoppers and
was therefore different in nature from
Gloucester Road or the City Centre. The site had been restricted to
the sell of 50% bulky goods and white
goods, however, open, unrestricted A1 sales across the whole of
Eastgate centre was granted by a
Committee in September 2016 despite the officer recommendation to
refuse.

2.
Officers were content with the design though it was at the limits
of what was acceptable;

3.
The Planning Obligations Manager stated that the key issue for this
application was viability for affordable housing. He stated that
the affordable housing process had been protracted as the applicant
had changed their viability consultant following assessment of the
original viability appraisal submitted with the application, and
had been changing key inputs such as Operating Costs and Profit
Margins, which would have been expected to be set at an early point
in the viability process.

4.
He reported the receipt of a letter overnight which confirmed that
the applicant would commit to a wholly private rental scheme for at
least 15 years. This period was not unreasonable and would be
secured in the Section 106 agreement. Affordable Housing would be
secured for 125 years as was the case for ND7.

5.
The Planning Obligations Manager confirmed that it was not
appropriate for the viability appraisal to take account of long
term growth, as the District Valuer was
very clear that this must be dealt with in the yield, which was low
for this scheme reflecting that rental growth was likely. It was
not possible to know future rental growth and if there was another
recession there could be no growth.

6.
RICS had recently consulted on the issue of how to value property
purpose built for the rental sector, and this had indicated that
stamp duty land tax should be included in viability assessments for
Private Rental Sector Schemes. The consultation was now closed but
there was no report yet to provide clarity on the matter and no
timescale regarding publication of the full guidance. However, at a
meeting the previous day the applicant had stated that the draft
guidance was now full guidance, despite this not being the case.
The District Valuer considered that she
should have regard to the guidance even if only draft, and despite
her not being aware of any Private Rental Sector schemes that were
not being held as long term investments.

7.
On this basis, the District Valuer
concluded that with stamp duty land tax factored in, the
development could provide 4 affordable dwellings with rents set no
higher than Local Housing Allowance levels.

8.
The viability assessment assumed the commercial element of the
development would be sold when completed therefore stamp duty land
tax would be included for this element. In this case the applicant
maintained that the viability figure should include stamp duty land
tax for the whole scheme despite them accepting that the
residential element of scheme would ...
view the full minutes text for item 87a